canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: dr croubie on November 22, 2012, 03:31:49 AM

Title: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: dr croubie on November 22, 2012, 03:31:49 AM
So with all the talk of "who's going to bring out the first FF Mirrorless and when", I'm interested to know *why* people want some so badly.
The options are pretty self-explanatory, but I thought I'd give some counter-arguments to each option to start with:
- 1/2: Yes, potentially mirrorless can be thinner. But taking out the mirror and reducing the flange distance can lead to other problems, with the greater angle of incidence. Leica has overcome that problem, at least some of it, with fancy microlens arrays, but still problems exist that must be fixed in PP. Read this (http://lavidaleica.com/content/using-cornerfix-correct-images) and this (http://www.digitalhapeman.com/2011/03/27/21mm-m-mount-lenses-on-the-leica-m9/) for examples of these problems. Of course, you can use your current EF lenses on any potential-future FF mirrorless body, but then the combo won't be much smaller than using it on an 1100D now.

- 3/4: Yes, taking away the mirror means less parts used in manufacturing and less potential for things to break. But you really think a bit of a mirror (which they've had 40 years of experience and R&D making) adds that much to the cost of a camera?

- 5: It will happen. ... ... eventually. For now there's no denying that phase-detect is faster than phase-in-sensor and contrast-AF. But with enough R&D it will happen.

- 6/7: That's somewhere about where I am.

Any other potential reasons to want an FF Mirrorless that i've missed?
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Half Way To Nothing on November 22, 2012, 04:23:46 AM
You need an option for "I don't want a FF Mirrorless"
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Patrick on November 22, 2012, 04:33:59 AM
You need an option for "I don't want a FF Mirrorless"
+1
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: verysimplejason on November 22, 2012, 04:36:29 AM
There's already an FF mirrorless.  Sony A99.  FF, mirrorless in DSLR form factor.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: pakosouthpark on November 22, 2012, 05:36:09 AM
if the cost is much less and does most of the things of a 5d why not? lighter, smaller - for travelling is perfect.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: dr croubie on November 22, 2012, 05:44:24 AM
You need an option for "I don't want a FF Mirrorless"
+1

Yeah, i was going to, then forgot it out of the poll...
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: PVS on November 22, 2012, 06:52:16 AM
I want one, yeah, unfortunately they've already designed one with my favorite focal length - it's called RX1 and sets you $3k back.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Timothy_Bruce on November 22, 2012, 07:24:20 AM
There's already an FF mirrorless.  Sony A99.  FF, mirrorless in DSLR form factor.
It is not mirrorless! The mirror is only fixed and there is no OVF.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: mb66energy on November 22, 2012, 08:46:03 AM
I am really interested in a moderately priced and compact FF mirrorless with a large capacity battery (750+ exposures per charge). OVF should be optional to keep footprint small.

Please use a shorter flange distance but EF mount with sth. like a 20mm extension tube as adapter for EF lenses - which can be used for other purposes.

Please give us an aperture ring around the mount base.

Please give us a status display showing f, t, ISO, charge, free data space, format, drive mode, exp. meter characteristics, color temp. and exp. compensation PERMANENTLY (e-ink display?).

Don't make it a luxory article but a simple but tough and reliable tool. Without mirrorbox etc. it should be easy to build such a camera for roughly 1200 $ / €.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on November 22, 2012, 02:01:11 PM
The issue with a FF mirrorless camera with a shorter flange back distance is that a new family of lenses will be needed, and they will be more expensive than the existing EF lenses.  Wide angle lenses will be inferior (You can't bend light that much without many lens elements).
The most practical is to make a pellix type lens, but Canon has tried that a couple of times and they have not sold well.  With live view on all the newer DSLR's, there is little practicle advantage to mirrorless for the masses, and Canon is a mass producer of cameras, not a specality camera company.  Thats not a judgement, just a fact.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: mb66energy on November 22, 2012, 02:24:48 PM
[...]
Wide angle lenses will be inferior (You can't bend light that much without many lens elements).
[...]

After my information it should be much easier to produce a high IQ wideangle if you are not restricted to place the last lens element before the maximum protrusion by the mirror of an SLR.

SLR wide angles are always retrofocus constructions which shift lens planes behind the physical lenses- to keep the mirror space clear. Why have 85mm lenses and focal lengths above such extraordinary IQ from center to corner (o.k. in most cases)? They are not retrofocus so you don't have to struggle with extreme lens materials or lens geometries.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: dr croubie on November 22, 2012, 02:54:30 PM
I've always thought that mirrorless gives better wide-angles than retrofocus.
Or at least it makes them smaller and lighter to give decent IQ.
Look at the size of the Canon, Samyang, Nikon, and the new Sigma 35/1.4. They're all huge, relatively.
Then look at the diminutive size of the Summilux 35/1.4.
Or compare any Biogon design, they almost touch the film in most cases (so you can't even use them on a CL/CLE). In that case Flange Distance is irrelevant, the lens only sticks out 40mm from the film/sensor plane. And biogons are some of the sharpest lenses ever designed with 0% distortion...
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Marsu42 on November 22, 2012, 03:11:59 PM
- 5: It will happen. ... ... eventually. For now there's no denying that phase-detect is faster than phase-in-sensor and contrast-AF. But with enough R&D it will happen.

... and once it does, we'll be on digic8 and have an electronic viewfinder you cannot tell from an optical one, though it'll drain power which is the tradeoff. That means all the information and assist you want in the vf, zebras, focus peaking, ..., and af ("points") everywhere. And 100fps if you want it because there's no mirror to flip.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Dylan777 on November 22, 2012, 03:12:26 PM
Primary reason I want a FF mirrorless is when I travel over sea. AF speed is not important in my case, since I'm only do still shooting. I DO NOT wish to mount my current 16-35 II, 24-70 f2.8 II, or 70-200 f2.8 IS II on that mirrorless. IT LOOKS STUPID

Just give me some pancake lenses: 14-24 f2.8, 35mm,50mm,85mm, and/or 100mm at f1.4 or bigger. I don't mind building another set of lens for mirrorless body, as long I can get decent IQ under low light and travel friendly. I'm all in.

If I need speedy AF, then I will take my 5D III with me.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: robbymack on November 22, 2012, 04:07:41 PM
Primary reason I want a FF mirrorless is when I travel over sea. AF speed is not important in my case, since I'm only do still shooting. I DO NOT wish to mount my current 16-35 II, 24-70 f2.8 II, or 70-200 f2.8 IS II on that mirrorless. IT LOOKS STUPID

Just give me some pancake lenses: 14-24 f2.8, 35mm,50mm,85mm, and/or 100mm at f1.4 or bigger. I don't mind building another set of lens for mirrorless body, as long I can get decent IQ under low light and travel friendly. I'm all in.

If I need speedy AF, then I will take my 5D III with me.

My thoughts exactly. I think it's going to be tough for a manufacturer to do this at a reasonable price, but seeing as Sony took on Leica with the rx1 they don't seem afraid to give it a chance. I'd bet they come out with something with interchangeable lenses in the next 12-24 months.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Daniel Flather on November 22, 2012, 05:01:01 PM
I'd take a FF mirrorless with a 50/1.x if the price is reasonable, let's say $1500, so basically it will never happen.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: dr croubie on November 23, 2012, 12:25:57 AM
So, i've been bored at work today, reading stuff about lenses (like every other day, really), and found some more interesting information on the problems on the angle of incidence.

I've come across this article (http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf). It's a fairly long-winded history of wide-angle lenses from Zeiss. But read page 12 in particular (you can just skip straight there if you know the difference between a Distagon and Biogon).

The long and short of it is this:
Take a regular wide-angle lens for an SLR, FF or APS-C, the light waves are going to hit the sensor a lot closer to orthogonal (that's a right angle, fyi).
Reduce this down into a mirrorless design, the lenses will be smaller, because there's no mirror in the way, right?
Well, maybe. If you want a smaller lens to put on your thinner FF mirrorless body, it's not as easy as just reusing the same sensor from your 5D. I already knew that leica had some fancy micro-lens arrays going on in front of their sensors. But according to this article, you also need a much much thinner IR Filter (and AA filter, and bayer array, and protective glass) in front of your sensor. That's probably why leica 'forgot' to put in the IR filter on their first M8. That's also probably why Leica has no AA filter. It's not for better IQ like it is in the D800E, it's because there can't be one. Well, OK, there can, but you're going to have to pay for it. (maybe this also explains that $3000 Sony FF P&S? Any cheaper and it'd be huge).
Leave in the regular-sized IR filter, bayer array, protective glass from your 5D, put it into a thin mirrorless body, with a thin pancake wide-angle lens? Your corners will not only look horrid, but you introduce field-curvature too.

So, at the end of the day, what can you expect?
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: gmrza on November 23, 2012, 01:47:50 AM
So, i've been bored at work today, reading stuff about lenses (like every other day, really), and found some more interesting information on the problems on the angle of incidence.

I've come across this article (http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf). It's a fairly long-winded history of wide-angle lenses from Zeiss. But read page 12 in particular (you can just skip straight there if you know the difference between a Distagon and Biogon).

The long and short of it is this:
Take a regular wide-angle lens for an SLR, FF or APS-C, the light waves are going to hit the sensor a lot closer to orthogonal (that's a right angle, fyi).
Reduce this down into a mirrorless design, the lenses will be smaller, because there's no mirror in the way, right?
Well, maybe. If you want a smaller lens to put on your thinner FF mirrorless body, it's not as easy as just reusing the same sensor from your 5D. I already knew that leica had some fancy micro-lens arrays going on in front of their sensors. But according to this article, you also need a much much thinner IR Filter (and AA filter, and bayer array, and protective glass) in front of your sensor. That's probably why leica 'forgot' to put in the IR filter on their first M8. That's also probably why Leica has no AA filter. It's not for better IQ like it is in the D800E, it's because there can't be one. Well, OK, there can, but you're going to have to pay for it. (maybe this also explains that $3000 Sony FF P&S? Any cheaper and it'd be huge).
Leave in the regular-sized IR filter, bayer array, protective glass from your 5D, put it into a thin mirrorless body, with a thin pancake wide-angle lens? Your corners will not only look horrid, but you introduce field-curvature too.

So, at the end of the day, what can you expect?
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.

I think you've touched on a very important issue here, and one which is often overlooked.  I suspect you can't get the flange distance much smaller than it already is on the EOS system without compromising performance.  Keep in mind that the angle of incidence of the light from the 85mm f/1.2 is already quite oblique.  Bring the sensor any closer, and you lose the ability to use these large aperture lenses without paying too much of a price in terms of sensor performance.  Alternatively, a new sensor technology is required.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Marsu42 on November 23, 2012, 01:59:58 AM
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3

No problem with that - but there is no need for it to be stuffed with mechanical parts or expensive electronics just to be compatible with today's lenses or large hands.

And if it's not heavy enough for balancing the lens or that "expensive" feeling just put some weights in an internal compartment :-> ... though I know that won't work, it's no coincidence car manufacturers spend millions of $$$ on audio-visual design to make closing the car door have the correct (expected, either expensive or cheap) sound :->
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: pwp on November 23, 2012, 02:23:29 AM
Yep I'd get one when it ships with decent AF, a truly fantastic EVF and fast sync speed. The EOS M is limited to 200th but the G15 will sync at 2000th. Very handy...

-PW
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: verysimplejason on November 23, 2012, 02:25:04 AM
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.

Well, there you have it... a Sony A99, an FF mirrorless approximately the size of 5D3 and priced around 5D3.  But I'd expect Sony won't fail to innovate.  Let's see in a couple of more years. 
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: AvTvM on November 23, 2012, 05:50:32 AM
I want one! Definitely. BUT .. i am not willing to sacrifice anything! So its got everything at least as well as a 5D3 or Nikon D800 currently. The only sacrifice required is the optical viewfinder. And I am not willing to pay an arm and a leg for a camera that would be at least 20% cheaper to build than a 5D 3. No mirrorbox, no mmirror, noc mechanical shutter, no prism, no optical veiwfinder. No expensive calibration of all that mechanical-optical stuff at the plant. Way less quality control required. Finally a truly digital camera without any mechanical cap inside. Welcome to the 21st century.   

For about 2.5k Euro or dollars I want an "EOS 1M" with the follwing specs [or better!]
* very compact package, basically an FF EOS-M or a Sony RX-1 with Canon EF-X lens mount up front
* Canon user-interface - both menus and external controls; thumbwheel + second front wheel
* pop up flash
* ultra high-end, no-delay EVF - let say 4k resolution
* 30+ MP sensor like Nikon D800 but with next generation hybrid Phase- and  CD-AF on sensor
* high AF-performance ... think of 1D-X but with AF points spread across the entire sensor
* electronic shutter with X-sync all the way to 1/8000s
* 6 fps would be plenty for me
* 500+ shots per battery charge
* good grip front left and thumb rear right
* mag-alloy body, tripod socket aligned with optical axis .. actually make that 2 .. one at bottom, one at left side, so I do not have to buy expensive L-brackets any longer
* no flash shoe, but Canon RT-radio-ETTL-master commander built in
* WiFi built in ... activate/deactivate via menu 
* GPS built in ... activate/deactivate via menu
* no video crap in it at all, except live view. no freaking red extra record button, no video menue options, nothin'
* no mechanical crap whatsoever inside
* fully dust- and waterproof IP67 
* EF adapter included at no extra charge ... like body cap
* small range of new native short flange-back pancake AF lenses: 20/2.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/2.0 ... the size of corresponding Leica M lenses - with optical performance 20% less and price 80% less.

Why do I want such a beast? 
* compact kit - for travel, in cities, for street photography, mountaineering, etc.
* no vibration, no noise - for concerts, theater, performances, churches and candids
* X-sync to 1/8000s - for cool action shots and more flexibility in flash photography
* truly digital camera - beacuse we live in the 21. century and a rangefinder Leica M just does not cut it for me
* fully compatible via adapter with all EF lenses - so I don't have to throw my collection away

that's it, Canon. Now go build it. On the double!! 
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Hillsilly on November 23, 2012, 06:55:06 AM
A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying?  A great sensor and EVF, with "ok" AF, maybe 3fps and 1/4000 shutter speed in a tiny (eos-M sized?) body and a low $1,000 to $1,500 price and I'd be happy.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: AvTvM on November 23, 2012, 07:13:13 AM
A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying? 

Do not agree with the first sentence at all. Just remove all the mechanical crap out a digital camera and there is enough space for a kick-butt CPU, a kick-butt hybrid AF and a decent battery to power kick-butt performance. I see no technical reason whatsoever and even less laws of nature that would preclude 1D X performance in a FF camera the size of a Sony RX-1. Today!

Just because Sony and Nikon did not yet do it, Leica cannot do it and Canon did not deliver on it yet ... does not mean they should not try. Quite to the opposite.  As a matter of fact, we should clamour for high performance mirrorless cameras much louder. rather than accepting the crappy offers, camera companies are trying to stuff down our throats. At last everybody who doese not only want to take STATIC stills. :-)

Anyway, I want one! And I know 1 or 2 more people, that might also want one.  ;D
And I will not buy a mirrorless camera that requires me to compromise on performance in every sense of the word. No way!
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: moreorless on November 23, 2012, 07:28:50 AM
So, i've been bored at work today, reading stuff about lenses (like every other day, really), and found some more interesting information on the problems on the angle of incidence.

I've come across this article (http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf). It's a fairly long-winded history of wide-angle lenses from Zeiss. But read page 12 in particular (you can just skip straight there if you know the difference between a Distagon and Biogon).

The long and short of it is this:
Take a regular wide-angle lens for an SLR, FF or APS-C, the light waves are going to hit the sensor a lot closer to orthogonal (that's a right angle, fyi).
Reduce this down into a mirrorless design, the lenses will be smaller, because there's no mirror in the way, right?
Well, maybe. If you want a smaller lens to put on your thinner FF mirrorless body, it's not as easy as just reusing the same sensor from your 5D. I already knew that leica had some fancy micro-lens arrays going on in front of their sensors. But according to this article, you also need a much much thinner IR Filter (and AA filter, and bayer array, and protective glass) in front of your sensor. That's probably why leica 'forgot' to put in the IR filter on their first M8. That's also probably why Leica has no AA filter. It's not for better IQ like it is in the D800E, it's because there can't be one. Well, OK, there can, but you're going to have to pay for it. (maybe this also explains that $3000 Sony FF P&S? Any cheaper and it'd be huge).
Leave in the regular-sized IR filter, bayer array, protective glass from your 5D, put it into a thin mirrorless body, with a thin pancake wide-angle lens? Your corners will not only look horrid, but you introduce field-curvature too.

So, at the end of the day, what can you expect?
You'll get an FF mirrorless eventually, but it's either going to be the size of the 5D3 (and the lenses aren't going to be any smaller either), or it'll be the cost of the 5D3, or it'll have so bad corner performance that it may as well be APS-C anyway.

Consider aswell that Leica's flange distance is about 1cm longer than most modern mirrorless cameras.

I think its noteble that Sony's new ultrawide zoom on the NEX really isnt that compact and that ultrawide zooms generally on mirrorless are not espeically cheap.

My feeling has always been that FF mirrorless if it does take off is going to be aimed at a different market to FF DSLR's, less focus on zooms, ultrawides and long tele's and more focus on small primes in the 28-85mm range.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: EchoLocation on November 23, 2012, 08:08:31 AM
A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying?  A great sensor and EVF, with "ok" AF, maybe 3fps and 1/4000 shutter speed in a tiny (eos-M sized?) body and a low $1,000 to $1,500 price and I'd be happy.
I think you're dreaming on the price... but for 2000 dollars i'd be in for sure.
If the RX1 had a removable lens, even if there was only one lens available for now(35mm 2.0 would be great)and was 3000 dollars($2000 body, and 1000 lens) I would have preordered. When I first saw the RX1 rumor that's what I thought it was and I was so happy. I'm just a little hesitant to spend 3k on a camera with only one single focal length. If I could buy a used RX1 for 2000 today, i'd be on it(and I might be in a year if no FF mirrorless has come out.)
I travel a lot, and currently live in China, so for me the FF mirrorless is all about high quality, and compact size. I'd love to trade in my D700 and 24-70 for an RX2 with a 24mm-50mm 2.8 zoom or something like that.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: AvTvM on November 23, 2012, 08:21:18 AM
Consider aswell that Leica's flange distance is about 1cm longer than most modern mirrorless cameras.

I think its noteble that Sony's new ultrawide zoom on the NEX really isnt that compact and that ultrawide zooms generally on mirrorless are not espeically cheap.

My feeling has always been that FF mirrorless if it does take off is going to be aimed at a different market to FF DSLR's, less focus on zooms, ultrawides and long tele's and more focus on small primes in the 28-85mm range.

No problem, as far as i am concerned. All I want is a very compact  camera and a few very compact M-sized medium-fast fixed focal lenses with Ring-USM AF in the focal range 20/24mm and 85-100 mm ... e.g. 24/2.8-50/1.4-85/2.0 would already cut it for me. If Leica can do it, so can Sony, Nikon, Canon. Does not take rocket science.

Any other focal length, zooms and specialty lenses ... from fisheye to ultra-wide to Tilt-Shift to supertele to 10x zoom .... don't  have to be ultra compact "native short back flange designs". I would never buy these, because for these special occasions and applications, we will simply use our existing EF lensesIt only takes a straightforward, electrically looped through extension-tube adapter ring. No special IR/AA filter etc. needed camera-side. Nothing, nada.   

It really is simple. No need to make a high-performance, compact FF mirrorless camera system appear complex. 
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: mws on November 23, 2012, 09:06:17 AM
I just want shallow DOF, and a somewhat wide/fast lens in a semi pocketable form. I'd buy a Leica if it wouldn't break the bank.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Dylan777 on November 23, 2012, 10:39:00 AM
A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying?  A great sensor and EVF, with "ok" AF, maybe 3fps and 1/4000 shutter speed in a tiny (eos-M sized?) body and a low $1,000 to $1,500 price and I'd be happy.

I wouldn't say that. Film Vs Digital - remember? We can't predict the techonoly 5-6yrs from now.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: 7enderbender on November 23, 2012, 10:45:20 AM
I think it'll happen eventually. Does need new sensor technology? Maybe. Let them figure it out. The size argument doesn't hold water for me. I'm looking at my little Olympus miu here on my desk. 35mm film "full frame", fast lens and tiny. Or look at the old Minox cameras or any real range finder for that matter. The electronics and batteries required shouldn't really be any bigger than the film transport mechanics used to be.

Why aren't we seeing it yet? Because I suspect there still is a MAD type agreement in place among camera manufacturers. So it comes down to future marketing options. Plus the consumers aren't ready yet for the actual differences since most people don't care about sensor size and don't understand the physics consequences. All is fine for most people as long as they can say they have so and so many megapixels and high ISO capabilities. Hey, in a way that's good because in the meantime I can still sell photographs that the MWaC's iPhones and toy SLRs simply can't produce even if they tried.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Mt Spokane Photography on November 23, 2012, 12:52:23 PM
if the cost is much less and does most of the things of a 5d why not? lighter, smaller - for travelling is perfect.
What would cost less?
The body will cost more, and the lenses will cost more.  Thats why no one is making a interchangable lens mirrorless.  AF is also much slower for cameras with large sensors.  The cameras with tiny sensors have fast AF, but it gets slower as the sensor size increases.  Much of this is due to the huge depth of field with a small sensor.  AF does not have to be very accurate to have the subject in sharp focus.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: RLPhoto on November 23, 2012, 01:47:23 PM
I would like a Leica styled camera with a FF sensor. AF would be nice if possible.

If canon could do another Canon 7 camera, I'd buy one.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: dr croubie on December 16, 2013, 08:40:20 PM
1 year on, I thought I'd resurrect this thread, now that we have the A7R available.
Whose predictions came true?
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: AvTvM on December 17, 2013, 04:37:21 AM
Excellent progress compared to last year I'd say. :-)

In one sentence: First ultra-compact, well-specced, hi-IQ mirrorless FF cameras available ... at surprisingly affordable prices. :-)

In more words:
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: RLPhoto on December 17, 2013, 09:34:07 AM
Excellent progress compared to last year I'd say. :-)

In one sentence: First ultra-compact, well-specced, hi-IQ mirrorless FF cameras available ... at surprisingly affordable prices. :-)

In more words:
  • Two mirrorless FF-sensored cameras available
  • Very attractive pricing on A7 and A7R
  • Excellent sensors, one model with (arguably) best sensor (res, DR) on market
  • Ultra-compact and light bodies, solid build
  • Useable fps and AF ... but not at DSLR level; no tracking, not for action
  • Very decent EVF ... but still XGA (not "retina"); still some lag; blackout between shots
  • Very decent feature set, UI, controls, ergonomics, WiFi
  • no in-body IS
  • no built-in flash
  • Poor battery charge
  • Shutters disappointing - mechanical, noisy, no silent mode, no high X-sync speed
  • two compact & light Zeiss primes available at launch - optically excellent, but not cheap
  • Kit-zoom available - not as small and good as hoped for, but reasonably low priced
  • Better Zeiss-Zoom 24-70/4 coming up soon
  • Adapters available, many brands/sorts of lenses usable
  • ...
  • Sony has delivered and set to deliver more ... see lens roadmap
  • Canon and Nikon still firm asleep at the wheel.

I wanted to like the A7 but my issues are

1. Sync speed. I need all I can get and do lots of flash.
2. Lens selection
3. First gen product
4. Lack of speed lite options.

I thought I'd make it my minimalist strobist cam but it's too early to jump into another system.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: 9VIII on December 17, 2013, 03:13:26 PM
I voted in the "doesn't use mirror" category. Basically everything other than the 400f5.6 is MF only or would be fine with contrast detect AF.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Hillsilly on December 18, 2013, 03:04:31 AM
A FF mirrorless camera will never be a performance beast.  So why bother trying?  A great sensor and EVF, with "ok" AF, maybe 3fps and 1/4000 shutter speed in a tiny (eos-M sized?) body and a low $1,000 to $1,500 price and I'd be happy.

Last year I would have been very excited about the new Sony cameras.  But now, I'm strangely unmoved.  I've recently bought into the Fuji X system and I'm really liking that decision.   As the Sony's aren't so well specc'd (or reviewed) that I'd consider dumping my Canon or Fuji gear, I can't see myself picking one up in the foreseeable future.  A FF Canon mirrorless camera might be a different story.
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: AvTvM on December 18, 2013, 03:39:30 AM
Where do you think, will we be a year from now [year end 2014] regarding mirrorless FF?

I'll boldly go first:
:-)

join in and we'll re-visit the thread a year from now!  ;D
Title: Re: Why do you want a FF Mirrorless?
Post by: Hillsilly on December 18, 2013, 05:05:14 AM
I love crystal ball gazing.  Where will we be in twelve months: -

I think most manufacturers will release fixed lens FF mirrorless cameras.  I certainly think that is Fuji's intention and I wouldn't be surprised if Canon and Nikon follow suit.  Canon's entry will resemble a vintage Canonet.  It will be a sales success.  In relation to interchangeable lens cameras, in addition to the EOS M3, Canon will release a highly specc'd EOS M3 Pro.  Both will use APS-C sensors.  The EOS M3 Pro might even be sold outside of Japan.

Pentax might be the odd one out and might announce a mirrorless system.  They've developed a strong APS-C following.  For years they've been saying that APS-C is good enough (...which it is), but there is a strong interest in FF cameras amongst their users.  A mirrorless system will allow the move into FF without disenfranchising their existing customers.  Pentax will walk away from retail.  Instead, you'll buy the camera directly from them online.  Taking some ideas from Ricoh, Pentax will design their camera in a modular fashion and users will have many different options to choose from.  You'll customise the camera at the time of ordering.  It won't be a huge success, but people will like the idea.

To the dismay of Pentax users, there won't be a Pentax FF DSLR.  Pentax will make the decision that they can't easily compete with Canon and Nikon (and Sony) as they don't have the resources to quickly develop an extensive range of lenses and accessories that most DSLR users would demand.   However, they will be able to develop a simple mirrorless system with only a handful of lenses.

Olympus will also announce a FF system.  They will use a mount which enables M43 lenses to be used (in crop mode) which will make current Olympus photographers very happy.  They will have also developed improvements to phase detect AF.  The Olympus model will be a very responsive camera.  Maybe not ready for birds in flight, but few will complain about AF speed.

The price of all of these cameras will fall in the $1400-$1700 range.  That's the new FF battleground.  Most people who have used a good crop camera in recent years will wonder what the point is, especially now that the widest aperture, maximum background blur look is getting a little dated.